균등침해요건: 과제해결원리의 동일성 및 작용효과의 동일성 = The Doctrine of Equivalents: solution equivalent in value and identical effect

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

Under the Doctrine of Equivalents (hereinafter 'DOE'), the equivalent means must be equivalent in value and achieve the identical effect. The Supreme Court held in its 2012 Hu 1132 Decision that whether the solution of the accused embodiment is equivalent in value to the solution of the patented invention must be determined based on the essence of the invention. The Supreme Court dealt with this issue in detail in its 2017 Hu 424 Decision. Furthermore, the Supreme Court Decision 2018 Da 267252 for the first time provided the test to examine the identical effect. This article considers these DOE criteria, based on the case analysis. The positive aspect of the Court's decision is that DOE was applied to individual elements of the claim, not to the claimed invention as a whole. However, it is the negative aspect that the Court applied the equivalent in value test based not on individual comparison but on overall comparison. With this interpretation, it is difficult to combine a fair protection for the patent proprietor with a reasonable degree of legal certainty for third parties. Rather, all the criteria of DOE should be examined from two aspects: individual comparison and overall comparison. Although the Court explained how to use prior arts under the 'equivalent in value' test, two things should be remembered. Basically, the essence of the invention shall be determined by the specification and prior arts not described in the specification shall only be considered in order to define the range of equivalence. Since the patent law protects the invention defined by the elements, not the underlying principles of the invention, it is important not to overly generalize the claimed solution. According to the Supreme Court Decision 2018 Da 267252, two different tests are applied when examining the identical effect, depending on whether or not the essence of the invention was known before the filing date. If the identical effect is examined this way, the identical effect requirement of DOE would depend a lot on the solution equivalent in value requirement of DOE and the role of the identical effect requirement would be diminished. DOE shall be applied to individual elements of the claim, not to the claimed invention as a whole. Thus, all the criteria of DOE should be examined from two aspects: individual comparison and overall comparison. When applying the solution equivalent in value test, it is important to remember that the patent law protects the invention defined by the elements, not the underlying principles of the invention. In addition, the important role of the identical effect requirement of DOE shall not be ignored.

참고문헌 (Reference)

1 김동준, "특허균등침해론" 법문사 2012

2 구민승, "특허 균등침해의 제1, 2 요건" 사법발전재단 1 (1): 37-113, 2019

3 김운호, "기재불비 및 진보성 극복을 위한 보정 및 분할출원과 의식적 제외" 법원도서관 (75) : 2008

4 강경태, "균등침해판단에서 구성의 구분과 과제의 해결원리 -서울고등법원 2012. 4. 19. 선고 2011나45820 판결에 대한 판례평석-" 서울대학교 기술과법센터 9 (9): 2013

5 정택수, "균등침해의 적극적 요건과 이용침해의 성립 요건" 법원도서관 (104) : 2015

6 한동수, "균등침해의 요건 중 ‘양 발명에서 과제의 해결원리가 동일한 것’의 의미와 판단방법" 법원도서관 (80) : 2009

7 한동수, "균등침해에서 과제해결원리의 동일성 요건" 대법원특별소송실무연구회 11 : 2014

8 김동규, "균등침해에서 과제해결원리의 동일성" 사법발전재단 15 : 2018

9 김동준, "균등침해 판단에 있어서 과제해결원리의 동일성" 특허법원 6 : 2013

10 김동준, "균등침해 요건 중 과제해결원리 동일성 판단방법" 특허법원 7 : 2017

11 김동준, "균등론상 과제해결원리동일성 판단 시 공지기술의 참작" 과학기술법연구원 23 (23): 41-82, 2017

12 김동준, "균등론: 특허법원 판결의 동향과 과제" 특허법원 (특별) : 2018

13 大友信秀, "特許判例百選" 有斐閣 2019

14 中山信弘, "注解特許法(中卷)" 靑林書院 2017

15 Donald S. Chisum, "The Scope of Protection For Patents After The Supreme Court's Warner-Jenkinson Decision: The Fair Protection -Certainty Conundrum" 14 : 1-, 1998

16 Maximilian Haedicke, "Patent Law: A Handbook" Beck/Hart 2014